tv [untitled] May 8, 2012 7:30pm-8:00pm EDT
turn its back on austerity? why are you forcing him to back house of lords reform and mr. cameron, why on earth are you letting him? >> let's deal with this issue of what you call austerity, what i call efficiency, deal with our budget and getting growth at the same time. we need to do both those things. if you look at what president holland d hollande is suggesting, his plan for getting rid of budget deficit is on a pathway with ours. i think it's a bit of a myth to believe that somehow there's some people in europe that are going to spend a lot more money and those of white house realize we have to deal with our debt and our deficit. we all have to deal with our deficits. if we don't, our interest rates will go up. that's the fact and that's why we've got to deliver these difficult public spending reductions that also everything we can do to get growth at the same time. now house of lords reform, okay. i wouldn't for a minute say this
is the most important thing the government is doing. of course it isn't. but parl simt quite capable of doing more than one thing at a time. do i think it would be a good idea if actually parliament delivered a house of lords that had people who were elected by you, the members of public in the house of lords to pass the laws that we all have to live by? sure i do. and every single party, major party, went into the last election saying that they wanted to reform the house of lords. so i think it's a perfectly sensible reform for parliament to consider. as i say, what matters, the things we're really focused on, getting that deficit down. getting our economy moving and creating a country and a society that's more worthwhile where people feel if i put in, i get out. if i work hard, i do the right thing, i will be able to do better for myself and my family. that's the program that the government is really pursuing. but sorting out some of our constitution at the same time, i don't see why parliament can't deal with that, as i said. >> on the first point, it's
worth remembering that the new french president, i think he said he's committed to balancing the books in france by 2017. now when we discovered as a coalition government last autumn that there was more pressure on the public finances than we'd anticipated, you know what we did? we didn't say we're just going to cut more. we said, okay. we're going to take a little bit longer. we're going to take a couple more years to do this. i think some of the caricatures that suggest somehow on the other side of the channel people aren't dealing with their deficit at all and we're rushing to do it much quicker, they're just that. caricatures. serve trying to deal with their deficits over a reasonable period of time. on house of lords reform. you know what? i care a lot more about apprenticeships than house of lord resform. i care a lot more about the fact that as of next april, 2 million people on low pay will be taken out of paying income tax for the first time because we're raising
the point at which they have to pay income tax. i care more about children from disadvantaged backgrounds doing well out of school and getting ahead and having real opportunities in life than i do about house of lords. it doesn't mean you can't do other things. and i have to say, my own view is that whilst i know it's wildly controversial in westminster, i think most people think that the principal that the people who make the laws of the land to be elected by people who have to obey the laws of the land isn't as controversial outside of westminster. i don't think it will go amiss since we've been talking about it for 100 years. >> christian from itv. >> thank you prime minister. you say you've heard the message from voters. no real sign, though, that you are actually listening. since friday's results came in you say yooir going to drill down on the deficit. you're going to rebalance the economy. you said that before. you'll get on the side of hard-working people. you said that before.
i'm struggling to see quite what has changed since the hammering that you both got last week at the polls. >> as i put it clearly, we've got to focus very clearly on the things that matter most. that is the economy. that's people's living standards. people's jobs. getting the economy moving. i mean if you ask what i'm going to be doing over the next few months or the deputy prime minister will be doing, it's going to be checking that the work program is up and running and taking people all the dole and giving them jobs. it's going to make sure the apprentices are rolling out and really being delivered in our companies. it's getting out, getting around the world, opening up our export markets and making sure we can sell great british products around the world. it's about hammering this argument with the banks and making sure they really are lending money. it's about going through every single sector and segment of our economy whether it's life sciences, green technology, energy. and what more can we do to get our economy moving and our economy going. that's is actually going to be the focus of my time, the focus of the deputy prime minister's
time in terms of what matters. so it's focus. it's delivery and proving that this is a coalition government. yes there are differences. but that came together in the national interest and can deliver in the national interest during the life of this parliament. >> one specific thing, chris. i think it's not lost on me nor is it i'm sure on the prime minister that where there are two parties, got a particular beating in wales, scotland and particularly the large cities of the north of england. i mean, there are ups and downs in other parts of the country. now i tell you what. i take one very important lesson from that which is that we must redouble our efforts in this coalition government to govern for the whole country. and i think there is a particular dilemma, and i say this, of course, as an mp from sheffield. there's a particular dilemma in those parts of the country which are particularly located in scotland, wales and the north.
not exclusively but particularly where for the last 10, 15, 20 years, they've been reliant, some would say overreliant on subsidies from governments in white hall and that those subsidies in turn were funded by explosive growth in the city of london. basically what we had for years and years and years was an economic model which is now broken. it's hit the buffer. and that economic model relied on governments sucking up to the city of london, basically letting the banks get away with murder. they generated huge pots of tax revenue and it was transported up, republic subsidy to other parts of the country. and that was all fine as long as the money was there. that merry-go-round was fine as long as it kept going around and round. it stopped. whoever is in government will have to face this really difficult challenge of what you do to rebuild those economies that have become lopsided. and that's why, for instance, i believe so passionately in us investing more, rather than less, as we are in manufacturing because that disproportionately
helps those parts of the economy in the north of england and elsewhere. so if you think we can do that between friday and tuesday, i'm afraid you can't do it that quickly. but i think the lesson of last week's elections is we must redouble our efforts to govern for the whole country. >> i just wanted to ask you, to all the people who are frustrated about lack of jobs, opportunities and all the rest of it, what's been holding you back up till now? what's been the problem over the past couple of years? >> i think the biggest problem is that what we found is that the damage done during the recession was much greater than people first realized. you know, the level of debt in our hoisholds. the level of doubt in oebt in o government has made recovery difficult. i think what's happening in our economy is there is some rebalancing going ahead. compared with the election, there are 600,000 more people employed in the private sector. compared with the election, exports have gone up.
compared with the election there are some encouraging signs in terms of manufacturing investment. but when you think of the enormous boom we had in terms of housing and banking and finance and government spending and also, i would argue, uncontrolled immigration as well, the drivers of growth were completely unsustainable. now those drivers are gone. it's really tough, hard, painstaking work getting our economy to grow. but it must be the right thing to try and deliver growth which is based on real hard work and effort. proper jobs. proper manufacturing. proper industry. based on the fact that government can't go on spending and borrowing beyond its means. and i think what we have to do is be very frank with people that it is tough. it is difficult. but these are the right steps to take so that we don't just pump the bubble back up and try and enjoy the sort of growth we had which was something of a mirage in recent years but let's build something really worthwhile.
and, yes, it will take time but it will be built to last rather than as the last recovery was, built on sand. it is difficult. and politics is not easy, obviously. when you are working in coalition, when you are dealing with difficult economic circumstances. but the most important thing is to do the right thing and to do the right thing by the people of this country who want government to think about the long term and not about tomorrow's headlines. >> just to underline that point, the latest forecasts are for the british government -- british economy will be a full 11% smaller by 2016 than it would have been if the crash in 2008 had not happened. a full 11% smaller. and no government can wave a magic wand and wish that away. the nature of that cardiac arrest that took place in 2008 just takes some time to recover and it means the economy is smaller than it otherwise would have been. i'm genuinely very opti very optimistic for future
of this country. meanwhile, we're here in a plant that's producing these extraordinary tractors. one is coming off the production line every four minutes. we -- i think we have undersold our strength and potential as a country as a manufacturing powerhouse. manufacturing now represents about 11% of the total value of our economy. there's no reason we shouldn't in the long term, hope that that should increase to 22% if not -- if not more. and that is what we are dedicated to doing over the long term. rebalancing the british economy. making sure that growth is sustainable, not the boom and bust of the past. you can't do it overnight but we are taking the right steps along that path. >> thank you all very much for coming. and i thank our hosts again today. i know some of the production line has still been work bug i'm worried we've shut down too much of it for too long. thank you for the welcome. thank you for your questions. thank you very much indeed.
this week, live from london, the ceremony and pageantry of the state opening of parliament. until recently, parliament's official opening was usually held towards the end of the year with changes to their election rules, it's now been moved to the spring. and wednesday, queen elizabeth will formally outline the government's priorities for the upcoming year. live coverage starts at 5:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2. next, a discussion on journalism and digital media. industry professionals talk about freedom of expression, citizen journalism and the role of social media in news gathering. this 90-minute event is hosted
by columbia journalism review. >> i'm jim duff. i'm the ceo here at the museum, and it is my distinct pleasure to welcome all of you here. it's an honor for us to host such a wonderful event. the 50th anniversary celebration that you are all participating in at the columbia journalism review. and it just gives us all the more credibility in what we're doing here to host wonderful events like this. it's also my great honor to introduce to you victor navasky who you all know so well. he's had such a distinguished career, if i went through the list of his accomplishments, i'd consume all the time you have for more interesting things and a recitation of everything that he's done. but, obviously, as you know, he's a publisher emeritus of the
nation, the magazine's editor. he was a publisher and editorial director from '95 to 2005. he was an editor at "the new york times" magazine. he's been an author. he's been a lecturure and a visiting scholar, and with that brief introduction from a magnificent career, i will turn it over to victor. >> thank you. i am one of only 20 introducers, so i just want to say about x years ago, nick lemon, the dean of the columbia journalism school did me the honor of asking me if i'd chair cjr. and that is the oldest media monitor in the country and maybe in -- around the globe. i'm not sure of that. but it has this legacy of trying to uphold standards in journalism and now it has this new challenge of figuring out what's a business model that can
work and so it's a great honor and pleasure to be at the newseum and with everybody else here. and we have just at cjr completed a search for a new editor in chief, and it's a countrywide, worldwide search. we ended up with a marvelous person, cindy stivers. and cindy, i'm going to let her speak for herself. >> thank you. well, i'm not going to tell you about me because this isn't about me but thank you very much, victor. this is the latest in our road show of our 50th anniversary celebration. it's a really exciting time for cjr, partly because of what victor said and also because now more than ever, journalists need help figuring out how to survive the hamster wheel of what we do and sort of what's working, what isn't working and, you know, we're trying to, as of this past week, we have a new homepage that makes it easier to come in
if you only have three seconds to see what's now, what's everybody talking about in our world. and also as of the past week, we are now available on the apple news stand and we'll shortly be on the nook. is that right, dennis? anyway, so all platforms, wherever you want us you can get us. part of the reason this is possible is due to amazing partners. and people who help us fund our work like, thank you, newseum, again. beautiful place. and google. i'm about to introduce the latest in the one, two, three punch is director of public policy, bob borstin. >> thank you very much, cyndi. and thanks to christy and victor for getting us involved in this. the only place worse to be in washington is between people and alcohol than between people and the people they came to see. so i'm going to be very brief here. i will do a very brief plug for
this topic of internet freedom. i spend my days doing this for google. we work on it around the world. and if anybody here is interested more on the topic, we're going to be having our own two-day conference about this in a couple of weeks, so please come and talk to me afterwards. my job here is to get off the stage and introduce robert siegel, our moderator for today. he is the recipient of the john chancellor award from columbia journalism school and with that the most distinguished dropout the school has ever had. he is, however, recipient of an undergrad degree from columbia in 19 -- '68. >> sorry to date you. i apologize. and i will let robert take it away with the panel. >> bob, thank you. thank you very much for getting my academic credentials out there front and center.
to say that we live in a time of great change in the news media should be self-evident because the more i think about it, we always live in a time of significant change. some of our panelists have worked -- one for quite awhile for cnn. cable news was a revolution that permitted the single channel that could be devoted to rock videos or news as it happened. i've been working for an fm radio network primarily for the past 25, 35 years. when i came there, fm radio was not in a majority of american automobiles. we benefited enormously from a great change in the media landscape. we have someone here who used to edit a newspaper that jumps the ocean and is published simultaneously on both sides of the atlantic. that would have been an editor's pipe dream not too long ago. times change and now we face changes that raise questions unlike any i can recall. questions such as, who gets in
control whose articles pop up in the search engine when you plug a word in? who gets to monitor whose digital communications. who figures out how to continue to make money from the enterprise of journalism in a culture of getting things for free and making perfect digital copies of whatever is out there. these are all questions which i think fit under the broad rubric of freedom of expression in a digital age in a global age. and i think we have quite an extraordinary panel that's been assembled to address these questions and others. starting from the far end, david ensor is director of voice of america. before that, he had an illustrious career as a television correspondent for abc and cnn. before that, i should remind him he was a reporter for npr for a while as well. and a very good one. he took time out to run communications for the u.s. embassy in kabul. and now he is running the voice,
a job that was held by john chancellor whose name has been mentioned as well as edward r. murrow. >> christy freeland is now the global editor at large for reuters which is a highly -- the highly respected news agency. originally british. they were at it when the new technology of the day was carrier pigeons. an extraordinary thing. she was a former deputy editor of the financial times in london and editor of the u.s. financial times which is the paper that i alluded to. and began as a stringer in ukraine working for everyone from what i can gather covering -- >> a lot of people there. >> a lot of people to cover. and eventually writing a terrific book called "sale of a century, the inside story of the second russian revolution." lee bollinger is the president of columbia university. he's made a study of the first
amendment and a little over a year ago in the columbia journalism review made a dramatic proposal for how he might address issues of the internet and the might address issues of the internet and the state of journalism today which i'll ask him to do in just a moment. we'll hear remarks from rebecca mckinnon, who was for most of the 1990s, for nearly all, in beijing for cnn. she was the bureau chief. she was almost raised to that task, having been taken by academic parents and put in chinese public schools. she went on to report as well as bureau chief from tokyo and now is a senior fellow at the new america foundation. her book "consent of the network" examines the very challenges that will e'll be addressing here. lee ballenger, you've made the most explicit proposal for how we should address journalism in the digital age.
give us briefly your diagnosis of the problem and what the solution should be. >> sure. i mean, my expertise is really the development of the first amendment in the united states and public policy relating to the press. so that's where -- that's sort of my lode stone as i think about this. i've also been connected to the press in a variety of ways, including my father owning, running a small newspaper. and i sit on the board of the washingt washingtonpost companies. i've watched the evolution of the press from about one where there was a monopoly or at best an oligolopoly. and i think to the credit of journalists and press institutions, those very favorable and privileged positions in the country were
ulgts it'sed to deepen the quality of journalism. so many of the great journalistic institutions we have in the united states -- "washington post," "new york times," so on -- really developed their expert deals in areas of law and science and medicine and economics in the 1970s and '80s as monopoly profits, as it were, made it possible to do that. of course, the internet has undermined that profitability. and one of the consequences of this, a very sad consequence, is the decline in foreign coverage, foreign news. the closing of bureaus. the closing of operations that make it possible to cover the world. that is happening at the very moment where we now live increasingly in a globally interdependent world. i can make that case, everybody can make the case. we now have a global communications technology.
we've never had anything like that before. we develop principles in the united states of freedom of speech and press that are the most protected of any country in the world or any country in human history. so now we're at a point where we have great global issues. we have a global communications technology. and we need to know more and more about the world. and we need to be able to deal with issues of censorship around the world. at the very time when our capacity to do that is declining. so my thought is we really have to face up to this in a variety of ways and one way is that, have more public funding. and of course, the journalists generally, that's anathema. so i know it's very controversial. and i think we have to be prepared to talk about it. but i believe there should be more public funding. of course, two people on the panel already are the
beneficiaries of public funding. and my thought is somehow we need to create an american world servi service, fund it, protect it, make it bigger than what we have now, and help us try to deal with the problem of actually living in a very globalized -- >> an american road service in a particular medium or in various media? >> well, im, my thought -- i mean, this is something where one can take a variety of views. i mean, the journalism school at columbia a year ago, two years ago, published a report, very famous, to some people infamous, of advocating public support for press generally. my thought would be that this really ought to be in the area of what we have now. npr, pbs. and the voice of america, radio for europe, so on. somehow we need to take what we
have, build it into an independent journalistic enterprise, and give it much more funding. of course, the funding level is now $500 million, $1 billion, it's in that magnitude in termsc expenditures. so for just doubling that, you could build something of really great worldwide significance. which would both help the world, help us overcome censorship, and help the united states. so i'm not -- the form of it is less important to me at the moment than getting the concept. >> first i want to hear from rebecca mckinnon. either about lee's proposal specifically but also about this new world of digital media and to what degree is it liberating, to what degree is it bleeding us and providing no resources for foreign coverage, pluses, minuses, what do you see? >> it sort of comes back to why
i left in the first place in 2004. i was being told by my bosses my expertise was getting in the way and could i please cover my region more like a tourist. at the same time in 2004 -- >> is your region growing dramatically this time? >> east asia, kind of important. but no guys with ak-47s running around blowing things up. anyway. but at the same time, in 2004, i happened to go on leave to something called the shornstein center at the harvard kennedy school and playing around with blogs and following citizen media. it was 2004 where you started to see blogs coming out and challenging both authorities as well as the authority of mainstream media. not only in the united states, however, but around the world. it was at that time you started seeing some really fascinating blogs coming out of the middle east, africa, asia, the former soviet states and so on. and so i ended up not going back
to cnn. i was very excited about this idea that, you know, we the foreign correspondents don't have to be gate keepers any more. if my bosses won't let me cover my region the way i think the people of that region deserve to be covered it doesn't matter so much any more because the people of that region can cover themselves or have the opportunity to do matters into their own hands as they feel that the international media is failing to represent them properly. so i got together with a colleague at something called the berkman center for internet society -- i've been a perpetual fellow. i'm sort of -- >> one of the fellows. >> you're supported by public funding, i'm supported by foundations and random rich people. but, you know -- but we created something called global voices online where we basically invited bloggers from around the world to cure rate the conversations coming out of citizen media around the world.
and, you know, i do believe that we need professional journalism for all kinds of reasons that we can talk about more. i'm not saying that bloggers should replace journalists. but the fact that people can report on themselves as we've seen in the past 12 to 18 months is tremendously important and powerful. and the second point which kind of comes to the subject of my book, my experience working with bloggers around the world through global voices and research i've done about censorship and surveillance around the world has also emphasized -- really brought home to me that we take the internet too much for granted. it hasn't been around very long but i think a lot of journalists, people assume it is the way it is and what you can do with it, the extent to which it's decentralized, so on, is kind of the way it is. but the fact that you can do what you can do today with the internet is the result of a whole series of engineering choices, programming decisions, business decisions, and
regulatory frameworks over the past several decades and those are constantly changing. and it's very possible that the internet could get legislated and engineered in a direction that will make dissent impossible because surveillance will be so strong. and that will make censorship easier and easier, both at the corporate and at the government level. and working with bloggers around the world and activists, i've seen firsthand these communities being tremendously empowered by the technology. the number of people who face life-threatening situations as a result of surveillance and as a result of some of these threats that a number of actors are posing to the internet are nontrivial and you can't assume the internet's going to automatically democratize and liberalize everything. >> krista free land has been nodding extremely enthusiastically as you've been speaking. i should add when we